Debian Bug report logs - #429798
opensync: please use library versioning

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Per Olofsson <pelle@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: new upstream version 0.20 available

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:49:27 +0100

Package: libopensync0
Version: 0.19-1.2
Severity: wishlist

See subject.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-3-686
Locale: LANG=sv_SE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=sv_SE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

-- 
Pelle

Message #10 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: 404856@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: new upstream version 0.21.1 available

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:33:47 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

retitle 404856 new upstream version available
thanks

Hi,

I'm looking at packaging 0.21.1. Upstream appears to have changed the API, not 
surprisingly, but they didn't bump the soname version. What should I do? I 
suggest to change the library (and -dev and -dbg) package name to 
libopensync-0.21.1-0, and ask upstream to start versioning correctly.

Marcus

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonny Lamb <jonnylamb@jonnylamb.com>

To: 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: new upstream version 0.21.1 available

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:00:46 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

retitle 404856 New upstream version, 0.22, available

A new upstream version, 0.22, has been released.

Regards,

-- 
Jonny Lamb, UK                               jonnylamb@jonnylamb.com
http://jonnylamb.com                                 GPG: 0x2E039402

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #22 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>

Cc: 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: separate msynctool package

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:16:42 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

[CC:ing the bug report]

Michael Banck wrote:
> I talked to them just now, and indeed the <opensync/opensync_xml.h>
> header got renamed between 0.19 and 0.22, so yes, that's an API change.

Ok, so that means the -dev package has to be renamed [1]. If we are sure that 
ABI is preserved we could perhaps keep the sonames (?), but changing them as 
well seems to be the safest bet. So I'll do that in my packages for now.

Marcus

[1] 
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#sonameapiabi

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: 404856@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:25:47 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

tag 404856 patch
thanks

My packages for 0.22 are available [1]. I have changed the sonames so the 
library packages can be installed in parallel with the current versions.

Some plugin packages and tools will be available shortly from the same 
location.

Marcus

[1] http://www.better.se/debian/opensync/

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #34 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>

To: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>, 404856@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:40:51 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:25 +0200, Marcus Better wrote:
> tag 404856 patch
> thanks
> 
> My packages for 0.22 are available [1]. I have changed the sonames so the 
> library packages can be installed in parallel with the current versions.
> 
> Some plugin packages and tools will be available shortly from the same 
> location.

Is there a reason not to just upgrade the existing packages? Are the
libraries ABI incompatible? 

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #39 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>

Cc: 404856@bugs.debian.org, Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:58:04 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> Is there a reason not to just upgrade the existing packages? Are the
> libraries ABI incompatible?

It's not clear to me, but they changed the API by moving the header file 
opensync/opensync_xml.h, according to Michael, so we need a new -dev package 
name or the existing packages will FTBFS (unless we transition all of them to 
the new version, which could make sense).

I can make a new package keeping the names if you prefer that.

Marcus

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #44 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>

To: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

Cc: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>, 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:32:49 +0200

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 12:58:04PM +0200, Marcus Better wrote:
> > Is there a reason not to just upgrade the existing packages? Are the
> > libraries ABI incompatible?
> 
> It's not clear to me, but they changed the API by moving the header file 
> opensync/opensync_xml.h, according to Michael, so we need a new -dev package 
> name or the existing packages will FTBFS (unless we transition all of them to 
> the new version, which could make sense).

We could also roll-back that rather gratuitious change for 0.22
(modifying most/all plugins) and keep on with the current library name
(thoroughly testing things), as the binary-compatibility is said to be
there.  Another possiblity would be to ship a copy of the new header
file at the old location.

We'll have to rev the library for 0.30 anyway, I hope upstream will
adopt some library versioning for this, but the more active upstream
guys seem to be aware of this issue. (according to some OpenSUSE guy I
talked to at FOSDEM, 0.30 is due before the next OpenSUSE release I
think - before around mid-summer I guess).

There's also the issue with the changed user-database format in
$HOME/.opensync; I'm not sure how to handle this on upgrade (except for
a cop-out NEWS.Debian or debconf notice), as we wouldn't know which
front-end the user prefers.

In any case, I don't think we should rush new opensync uploads, or we
might hit some upgrade-path issues (or rather, get more of them)


Michael

Message #49 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>

Cc: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>, 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:46:03 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> We could also roll-back that rather gratuitious change for 0.22
> (modifying most/all plugins) and keep on with the current library name

Good idea, I'll update my packages...

> There's also the issue with the changed user-database format in
> $HOME/.opensync; I'm not sure how to handle this on upgrade (except for
> a cop-out NEWS.Debian or debconf notice),

I don't see much reason for us to provide an automated upgrade, if upstream 
didn't care to do it. Based on the state of the software in v0.19, and 
especially the frontends, I would think not many people use it seriously 
anyway. So a NEWS.Debian message seems to be enough.

The following part of the release announcement for 0.22 should probably be 
included kin README.Debian:

"WARNING:
OpenSync is still in early stages of development. Please don't sync
without a full backup and only sync if you are able to restore from
your backup! Please follow the plugin's README prior to using a plugin!"

Marcus

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #54 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>

To: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>, 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:03:33 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 13:46 +0200, Marcus Better wrote:
> 
> I don't see much reason for us to provide an automated upgrade, if
> upstream 
> didn't care to do it. Based on the state of the software in v0.19,
> and 
> especially the frontends, I would think not many people use it
> seriously 
> anyway. So a NEWS.Debian message seems to be enough.

I wonder what popcon says. Upstream dont always have a good handle on
the userbase. For instance, the current debian version is in Ubuntu and
Etch - thats many millions of users with it available at a button press.

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #59 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>

Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>, 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:04:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> I wonder what popcon says.

That's easy enough: 771 installations for libopensync0, landing on 3937th 
place.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #64 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>

Cc: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>, 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:21:44 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> We could also roll-back that rather gratuitious change for 0.22
> (modifying most/all plugins) and keep on with the current library name
> (thoroughly testing things), as the binary-compatibility is said to be
> there.

Update: It's not binary compatible. Here, for instance, is a clear ABI and API 
change:
http://www.opensync.org/changeset/1443#file4

Notice how osync_time_vtime2unix() gets an additional argument. This happened 
between 0.19 and 0.20.

So I guess the libs have to be renamed after all.

What do you want to do, upload 0.22 or wait for 0.30?

Marcus

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #69 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>

To: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>, 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:29:05 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 11:21 +0200, Marcus Better wrote:
> > We could also roll-back that rather gratuitious change for 0.22
> > (modifying most/all plugins) and keep on with the current library name
> > (thoroughly testing things), as the binary-compatibility is said to be
> > there.
> 
> Update: It's not binary compatible. Here, for instance, is a clear ABI and API 
> change:
> http://www.opensync.org/changeset/1443#file4
> 
> Notice how osync_time_vtime2unix() gets an additional argument. This happened 
> between 0.19 and 0.20.
> 
> So I guess the libs have to be renamed after all.
> 
> What do you want to do, upload 0.22 or wait for 0.30?

Lets wait, less work and with the release just done theres no real
panic. Is there any chance upstream can be convinced to address the
format change for 0.30 ? a minimum of 770 users seems a big enough user
base to be nice too ...

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #74 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>

To: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>

Cc: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>, 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#404856: opensync: new upstream version available

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:46:58 +0200

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 07:29:05PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 11:21 +0200, Marcus Better wrote:
> > Update: It's not binary compatible. Here, for instance, is a clear ABI and API 
> > change:
> > http://www.opensync.org/changeset/1443#file4

Good catch!

> > So I guess the libs have to be renamed after all.
> > 
> > What do you want to do, upload 0.22 or wait for 0.30?
> 
> Lets wait, less work and with the release just done theres no real
> panic. Is there any chance upstream can be convinced to address the
> format change for 0.30 ? a minimum of 770 users seems a big enough user
> base to be nice too ...

You mean for the user-data?  I asked upstream about it:

<dgollub> we will break a lot from 0.2x to 0.30 .. but we will write
	kind of summary to track what to have to be done to port the
	setup from 0.2X to 0.30

Doesn't sound so great, we'll see.

People seem to push for a soname bump in libopensync now, but currently
0.30 uses SCons without any notion of library versioning at all (thus
providing just a libopensync.so).  It seems upstream is willing to
address this once the last major showstoppers for 0.30 have been
resolved, I try to keep them reminded.


Michael

Message #79 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Meskes <meskes@debian.org>

To: 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: When will 0.30 be released?

Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:11:45 +0200

Any idea when upstream will release 0.30? The roadmap on their site
mentions no date. If it takes longer I'd strongly recommend uploading
0.22 as it fixes some nasty bugs that are still in 0.19. For me 0.19 is
practically unusable because it doubles entries on each slow sync. The
0.22 version on http://www.in.fh-merseburg.de/~jahn/opensync-0.21/ works
nicely though. I'd prefer to get things from the Debian archive though.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

Message #84 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefano Costa <steko@iosa.it>

To: 404856@bugs.debian.org

Subject: 2007-06-01 Released OpenSync 0.30

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:04:42 +0200

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=200706011321.44339.dgollub%40suse.de

2007-06-01 Released OpenSync 0.30

Don't know if it fixes the current problems, but it's there.

-- 
Stefano Costa

Message #89 received at 404856@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: 404856@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: OpenSync 0.30 is out

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:37:12 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

tag 404856 -patch
clone 404856 -1
retitle -1 opensync: please use library versioning
tag -1 upstream
forwarded -1 http://www.opensync.org/ticket/467
block 404856 by -1
thanks

So 0.30 is released, and like we feared it has no library versioning at all.

I suggest we don't upload it to Debian until they start versioning, and I will 
try to explain to them why it's important. (Robert, if you disagree then feel 
free to unblock this bug.)

Regards,

Marcus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #108 received at 429798@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>

To: 429798@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: opensync: please use library versioning

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:31:43 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

tag 429798 fixed-upstream
thanks

Seems they finally did add versioning to Opensync 0.31, released yesterday. It 
builds libopensync.so.1.0.0.

They recommend packagers to wait for 0.40, but I guess we could make 
experimental packages to check things out. Should I go ahead?

(Note that only the "file" plugin as been forward-ported so far, so it's not 
very useful yet.)

Marcus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #115 received at 429798@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>

To: Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>, 429798@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#429798: opensync: please use library versioning

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:19:11 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 20:31 +0200, Marcus Better wrote:
> 
> They recommend packagers to wait for 0.40, but I guess we could make 
> experimental packages to check things out. Should I go ahead? 

I think getting something up in experimental is a grand idea.

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #120 received at 429798-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>

To: 429798-done@bugs.debian.org, 591565-done@bugs.debian.org, 393302-done@bugs.debian.org, 564009-done@bugs.debian.org, 380225-done@bugs.debian.org, 455235-done@bugs.debian.org, 629900-done@bugs.debian.org, 630030-done@bugs.debian.org, 554008-done@bugs.debian.org, 413498-done@bugs.debian.org, 569382-done@bugs.debian.org, 569410-done@bugs.debian.org, 380474-done@bugs.debian.org, 381634-done@bugs.debian.org, 395077-done@bugs.debian.org, 413198-done@bugs.debian.org, 433380-done@bugs.debian.org, 519105-done@bugs.debian.org, 582592-done@bugs.debian.org, 381636-done@bugs.debian.org, 503492-done@bugs.debian.org, 474986-done@bugs.debian.org, 481629-done@bugs.debian.org, 415005-done@bugs.debian.org, 439944-done@bugs.debian.org, 496909-done@bugs.debian.org, 505240-done@bugs.debian.org, 474954-done@bugs.debian.org, 619712-done@bugs.debian.org, 619776-done@bugs.debian.org, 577637-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: opensync et.al. has been removed from Debian in 2012

Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 13:25:26 +0200

opensync et.al. was last released with Debian 6.0 (squeeze) in
February 2011 and removed from Debian sid/unstable in 2012 (see
http://bugs.debian.org/662132 for details on the removal). Since
support for squeeze and squeeze-LTS has now ended, I'm closing all the
remaining bugs reported against these packages.

Andreas

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.